How do I make this work more seamlessly? Client Bridges, routers and whacky access points.

[AlexianaBritmonkey]

Hi,

I'm.. sort of in a crisis with this.

I live with my mother still because I'm not an adult, so factor this in why it's so [bad].

I'll add a diagram to the post. Read/view that one first, and then continue reading..
--

Problems I'm having:

Any device connected to the Client Bridge's ports via LAN require static IP's to function. The IP reservation is optional and does work for devices in the WLAN network. I like to have the most used machines on a static IP. However, as it works with other machines not on the client bridge, when I disable static IP on the client it goes bonanzas. It tries to reach DHCP, receives IP's in the whoock of 147.157.1.138. This is the LOCAL IP it gets assigned. It seems like the DHCP server on the main router isn't being reached.

Occasionally, any device connected to WLAN will also funk out (especially my Linux-powered laptop) by receiving an IP address that's just plain out of the bounds that were assigned to the DHCP (addresses 100-150). See the Image with the config window.
Notice also how it always just goes out of the bounds and always defaults to 192.168.1.2 as gateway. The *?

major conclusion: Because my WiFi sucks, and I can't run LAN to downstairs, and my phones barely connect to it downstairs: I need a fix. I would like to upgrade the WRT54GL to another natively WRT supporting device that doesn't break the bank. Wireless N at least would be nice.
However, since upgrading is for Just-not-now I'd like to fix the client bridge to work seamlessly (as if the client bridge's lan devices were directly wired to the router's switch) so that it works with DHCP. Address reservation is a feature of the DHCP so if DHCP works, that will work too.

Don't know where to put this: So it needs to actually, when a device asks 192.168.1.3 aka Client Bridge "hey, I want an IP Address!", forward this to 192.168.1.1, and then have the IP assigned by the one MASTER DHCP. It also needs to tell every pc that the DHCP is located at 192.168.1.1. That's what Default Gateway is right? The one that handles the core?

Also: the reason for the high range of the DHCP is so I can assign static IP's to devices without any possible conflict of when the static'd device goes offline, that the dhcp assigns a device the IP of a static device. This is what address reservation is for, in case you want a static IP in the dhcp's range.

I was thinking of getting a WRT-3200AC (or something named like that, at least) for the main device upstairs. This should give better signal strength than the TL-WR1043ND we have right now, right?

If you suggest any items for me, for now or the future, please try and find them on Belgian sites or use the BE version of Pcpartpicker (if they do networking gear too). You might suggest US-only devices otherwise, that I can't find in Europe.

Cheers,
Annelies

The diagram. http://imgur.com/a/NHLG8
The Linux config window: http://imgur.com/a/MseFm
The desktop, main windows pc when not in static mode: http://imgur.com/a/Enegp

I bricked my internet temporarily for a long time trying to make the windows screenshot.
edit: if I have a wireless AC access point, and then also a wireless AC access point with DDWRT... Can I use Beamforming to make it better? It has to go through thick concrete but there's not alot of wifi in the area.


<Language, please. Thanks>

 

[bill001g]

I don't think you correctly understand what I mean then. I only have ONE device transmitting a wireless signal on channel 11. Only channels 3-7 are used alot in my area. 9-12 practically not.

Just to say: Wireless connection on its own is totally fine. The only issues I really need to have solved is the IP-DHCP kinda thing. Upgrading hardware to achieve higher speeds is something I can do on my own. After all, Wireless G is starting to show its age, too.

The bridge should be as Bill said transparent. Also why is your computer on the bridge side plugged into the WAN port? Shouldn't you be using the LAN side ? Also before you go running up and down the stairs to reset everything put all of them in one room to test everything

I strongly suspect he is running the option in dd-wrt that does nat on the mac address. This was the only way to do this before WDS solved the issue of putting mulitple macs behind a encrypted wifi connection. I am not sure what version of dd-wrt added WDS or maybe it is not implemented on 802.11g. It does not appear his software does not have the WDS option. I have not used these old routers for a long time so I don't know if the function was ported back to the older router models in the newer dd-wrt images.

 

[Beachnative]

Thanks Bill001g !!!

 

[AlexianaBritmonkey]

I don't think you correctly understand what I mean then. I only have ONE device transmitting a wireless signal on channel 11. Only channels 3-7 are used alot in my area. 9-12 practically not.

Just to say: Wireless connection on its own is totally fine. The only issues I really need to have solved is the IP-DHCP kinda thing. Upgrading hardware to achieve higher speeds is something I can do on my own. After all, Wireless G is starting to show its age, too.

The bridge should be as Bill said transparent. Also why is your computer on the bridge side plugged into the WAN port? Shouldn't you be using the LAN side ? Also before you go running up and down the stairs to reset everything put all of them in one room to test everything

I strongly suspect he is running the option in dd-wrt that does nat on the mac address. This was the only way to do this before WDS solved the issue of putting mulitple macs behind a encrypted wifi connection. I am not sure what version of dd-wrt added WDS or maybe it is not implemented on 802.11g. It does not appear his software does not have the WDS option. I have not used these old routers for a long time so I don't know if the function was ported back to the older router models in the newer dd-wrt images.

Well, her software version is 12548M 😛

I'm not running any NAT. It's a client bridge.

What's still so baffling is that the same issues happen with my laptop directly connected to 'base-station'. While the laptop and this desktop are the only ones.

 

[Beachnative]

If you connect - ISP router modem=> Your Router=> Your laptop and still have issues then you need to iron out that issue first before adding any other devices to the mix. Does your Linux laptop work when plugged in directly to your router? Get the IP address and make sure it is in the DHCP pool.

Always start at the beginning and end at the end. I'm not trying to be a jerk but knowing it happened before the bridge would have been very useful at the beginning of this conversation.

Test with one device connected to your network first then add them.
When setting up something like this I would always have tested from directly from the router then worked my way out, not the other way around.

 

[AlexianaBritmonkey]

Wired is never any problem. But wireless somehow goes wrong. I've done everything I could. I've resetted it to default and used it defaul-settings mode (which kinda ruined my whole media center address reservation) but it somehow still fucks up by sending 'gateway 192.168.1.2' and 'an address out of the dhcp bounds' to my devices.. I don't understand this. :')

I'm.. going to do some research and troubleshooting tomorrow. Find out if it has anything to do with a rogue DHCP. Sourced:
http://imgur.com/a/Gk32r

 

[Beachnative]

The first router is the modem/router givent to you by your ISP?
What is the second router( MFG and model)?
Did you reload the firmware on the second router not just resetting it?

 

[AlexianaBritmonkey]

A little laterrrr:

The issue seems to have disappeared with using BACKUP SETTINGS on the CB, and then fully wiping the settings with factory reset and then 30-10-30. After restoring the backup, it just works. I don't know how it fixed it but for now, it did.

I also wanted to add that, before the sudden fix, if I don't have the bridge connected and connect the devices wirelessly to the main router albeit very bad speeds, latency and connection integrity, everything worked smooth as butter. The reason I got the WRT54GL was to make it a CB because the 54GL has higher output power which means if the AP is higher output the signal isn't limited by the low output of the device (the client in this).